And I mean everything. Whatever veneer of civility existed in the US Congress was very deliberately extinguished in 1994 by Newt Gingrich when he instructed his caucus that their Democratic colleagues were no longer ‘the opposition’. They were ‘the enemy’.

After that, and after being tossed out by his own party just a few years later, and after a few more wives, and after a near bankruptcy or two, and after a vanity campaign for president, and after being hired by CNN – proving their irrelevance once again – to resurrect the reviled show Crossfire (perfect casting, I must say), comes now his call for John Kerry to resign as Secretary of State. Because climate change you know.

I don’t usually read Dan Milbank, but he delivered a fountain of pure deliciousness today and here’s some more:

The Republican lawmakers may be so muddled because their thought leaders can’t agree on the proper line of attack. . . .

The confusion grew so intense during Obama’s intervention in Libya that some Republicans contradicted their own critiques in the span of days. Gingrich, for example, demanded in early March 2011 that the United States should “exercise a no-fly zone this evening.” Two weeks later, after Obama took the action that would bring down Moammar Gaddafi, Gingrich said, “I would not have intervened.”

I’m just catching up with Moonshinepatriot’s Bobblespeak Translations, which goes up weekly – most weeks amyway – after the Sunday gasbags finish with their weekly full frontal assault on reason – and the poor beleaguered English language.

Here’s’ a delicious little bit of ‘translation’ from May 27, Meet the Press.

Q: You recently said about Newt Gingrich: “He’s just one of the worst people I know of who didn’t commit violence on somebody.” Did he kill your dog?

A: He transformed American politics from one in which people presume the good will of their opponents, even as they disagreed, into one in which people treated the people with whom they disagreed as bad and immoral. He was a kind of McCarthy-ite who succeeded.

For those who don’t remember, this article was written in 1995, after Gingrich became Speaker of the House. Here are the words that Gingrich, in a memo, urged his fellow Republicans to use when referring to Democrats:

In the mid-80’s, Ronald Reagan sat down with Speaker Tip O’Neill and crafted a few fixes to secure Social Security as a self-funding program for the next quarter century. It worked, just as planned. They knew, as did congress then and as does congress now, that future congresses would be required to do the same from time to time. They knew then as they know now, that Social Security is sound policy and a sound program, unless . . . .

For nearly a century, this marvel of policy engineering has kept generations of our elders out of poverty.

For all of that time, it’s also had enemies, determined to destroy it. In the 80’s, Reagan and O’Neill and the sensible policy establishment (much more centrist then) in Washington hadn’t yet heard of Newt Gingrich or Grover Norquist or Pete Peterson (well, those aforementoined ‘enemies’ had heard of Peterson all right – he financed them). Nor did they know that a well-funded campaign was already underway to convince younger Americans that SS wouldn’t be there for them, while quietly engineering its destruction.

They’ve pretty much succeeded. Because they knew that all it would take to break Social Security was to refuse to fix it.

Lessons in pandering at the NRA (or “how you too can jump the whole shark with just a single sentence”)

The right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government,” Gingrich said. The NRA “has been too timid” in promoting its agenda beyond American borders. The Bill of Rights was not written only for Americans, he said. “It is a universal document.”

By the way, do you know the American citizenry has the 2nd highest rate of gun ownership in the world? Do you know who’s first? Yemen.

ALSO: thanks to friend Jane for directing me to this article in The New Yorker, a fascinating history of gun concealment laws and gun control in the US (pre modern NRA). I didn’t realize how different things were back when – even in Dodge!

The first thing the government of Dodge did when founding the city, in 1873, was pass a resolution that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.”

Another one in Texas 20 years later:

As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder”.

Today’s big news is that Romney lost three caucuses last night. Anyone remember who won them in ’08? Of course not. No delegates were even in play last night; in a few months it won’t matter a bit.

Our elections – as they often are – could be decided by events over which neither the President, nor any candidate has control (most of which even the United States can’t control); we can only mitigate them. So who the Republicans ultimately nominate and who wins the November election may depend on:

the state of the ‘Arab spring’ by July

the state of the European economy this summer, and thus

the state of the US economy

Afghanistan and, yes, Iraq where conflicts are still largely religious and more violence is inevitable

the price of oil

Any or all of these things will factor in our elections (as will the conservative success in spinning them as Obama failures). In normal times, even with these problems, I think Romney would still be the likely candidate. (And I still think Obama would win the election.)

But what if times aren’t normal? What if one of those things explode? What if that happens before the Republican convention . . . if that happens, bombast could take the day. Fear could triumph.

Much as we allowed ourselves, in our fear, to be lied into Iraq discarding both the truth and history, could the GOP do the same and reject Romney?

If that did happen, frightened delegates could be seduced by a radical voice articulating their fears. We all know who that would mean.

When you have $22 billion, giving ten million to a guy to publicly advocate for the cause of your lifetime is cheap, especially if he salutes and does it. Sheldon Adelson got his money’s worth with Newt.

In December, Gingrich proclaimed the Palestinians “an invented people.” Israel’s Haaretz daily reported later that month that Adelson approved of the remarks. And Gingrich has said that one of the first executive orders he would sign if elected president would move the American Embassy to Jerusalem.

That embassy pledge isn’t new in American politics. But Gingrich also said that Isreal’s official capital, Jerusalem, must be defended as such. I’m not certain what that means, but I’ll guess that it’s a call to reject sharing the city, a negotiating point in all peace talks. He simply dismisses the fact that Jerusalem is central and foundational and sacred to all three Abrahmic relligions. (Fine from a private citizen, but reckless from a public politician running for Presdient.)

Adelson is an ardent Zionist who advocates for the U.S. to adopt the most hard line policies on Israel, stuff even Netanyahu rejects – the kinds of positions opposed by large numbers of Israelis, perhaps even a majority. Positions that ignore danger, shut down negotiatios and invite war.

At least, he doesn’t pretend. He puts his money where his mouthpiece is. And there’s plenty more where that ten million came from.

. . . after several days in which Romney has hammered Gingrich over his consulting work for mortgage giant Freddie Mac, the former Massachusetts governor leads the former House speaker, 40 percent to 32 percent.

Romney won this debate, and probably Florida, and so the nomination. Newt collapsed, as bullies and blowhards often do when somebody fights back. Santorum auditioned for Romney’s VP, and greatly enhanced his chances. Ron Paul shines on, that crazy diamond [great line].

Romney started strong, completely obliterating Newt on immigration and questions about his finances, and then stayed strong. Santorum again turned in an admirably dogged performance, but so what? Romney won the debate and the nomination.

Romney held off Gingrich, and Gingrich was flailing most of the night. Unless something strange happens in the next few days, Romney should hold his lead in Florida. Santorum may have gained a little, but nowhere near enough to challenge for second place. Paul did a decent job tonight, but Florida is not a good state for him and he’s already looking to the caucus events in February.

There’s much, much more at the link. All of it worth a read if you’re interested in the Florida vote on Monday Tuesday.

(I should really get off my current obsession with Gingrich, but dear Elvis, there’s just so much out there!)

Ever seen that eternal TV sitcom The Office? Of course you have. And you are therefore familiar with the loathsome character Dwight Schrute, played by the definitely not loathsome Rainn Wilson, who tweets.

Here are his most recent gravatars on Twitter. Do you see it? Do you see it?

National Review Online is going after Newt. There’s a devastating statement by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole – and here (on the left) is the poll on their homepage. Bill Buckley, the late NR publisher, conservative deity and very definition of the elite Ivy League northeasterner of whom Newt is so contemptuous (actually I think he’s really jealous), would likely approve.

The piling on is getting serious now. Newt could yet win in Florida, but his time in the sun is running out.

From Dole’s statement:

. . . it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself.

. . . Gingrich [as] nominee could result in a landslide victory for Obama and a crushing defeat for Republicans from the courthouse to the White House.

Following up on the earlier post – when you’re hired as a strategist for a company’s top lobbyist, this is the job description.

Consultant will provide consulting and related services as requested by Freddie Mac’s Director, Public Policy in exchange for which Freddie Mac will pay Consultant $25,000 per each full calendar month during which Consultant provides Services.

. . . there you go. That’s the whole thing. When you cut out the 14 other pages of boilerplate terms and conditions, generic stuff that is copy and pasted into every contract, that’s the actual meat of it. Wow. A whole sentence—I think I even see a comma in there.

“nothing herein is or shall be construed as an agreement to provide lobbying services of any kind or engage in lobbying activities.”

Crisp and clear, that – and not to be ‘construed’ as other than the absolute utter truth. One does wonder why they felt it necessary to includeg that phrase when contracting with a ‘historian’ or ‘strategist’?

The brief story in my paper this morning did not tell me what the contract does include. I shall go a-googling.

Perhaps because I am as big a fool as Brian Williams, he who is ‘moderating’ tonight’s ‘debate’. So far, it’s the worst yet. A full 33 minutes in and Williams has yet to ask a single question of substance.

Candidates need not have any policy positions to be in Brian’s debate. They just have to be willing to be like the pundits and talk about the horse race – and about what the other candidates have said about them.

He’s also trying to tease Romney and Gingrich into a fist fight

Finally, the candidates themselves have begun answering his stupid questions with policy answers. He hasn’t yet noticed. Hard to see stuff like that when you’re transfixed by the face you see in the mirror.

This is from Andrew Sullivan (his headline too – paraphrasing it only weakened it) at The Daily Beast. There’s a graphic at the link that for some reason I’ve been unable to use here. Can’t save it, snip it or copy it. Well, I can, but when I try to insert it here . . . FAIL. Don’t now what that’s about. So be it.

At the site, there’s a pix of the serial adulterer, Mr. Gingrich. It features this text:

FAMILY VALUES

Using daughters from your first wife to convince everyone that your second wife is lying about your third wife.

The Newtster is sure having him some fun and dreaming dreams of what I think is his real goal – “a series of three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates”. Without a moderator of course. It’s not a stretch to think he’s less interested in the Presidency than he is in 12 hours in front of the cameras with a real President.

But it’ll still be Romney. Here is why a Newt nomination is a mirage. From the last six months of national polls:

In August 2011, Gingrich had a favorability rating of 26% and an unfavorability rating of 57%.

By December 2011, he was up to 43% favorability. Big jump.

And yet? Last week, Gingrich has a favorability rating of 26% and an unfavorability rating of 60%.

Even more people don’t like him. That’s how it always goes with Gingrich.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, likes Newt Gingrich. Really. This very morning, on the teevee, he made that clear. He wasn’t asked of course how this could be since up to last week he was publicly cautioning against Newt. As someone who served in Gingrich’s Congress, Graham experienced a volatile, unreliable, scatter-shot and dangerous man. And the Senator has been saying so.

Graham even likes Gingrich’s immigration position!

Whee! Haley Barbour too! Not endorsing, but softening the anti-Gingrich rhetoric. He’s still a Romney man, but old Haley is cautiously hedging his bet. A smart politician sets up his eventual flip flop.

Breathing was briefly interrupted tonight in board rooms, banking houses, country clubs and genteel neighborhoods all over this nation as news spread that the chubby, ethically challenged serial-adulterer Newt Gingrich had bested Romney by double digits.